throbber
Case 1:21-cv-02773 Document 1 Filed 10/18/21 Page 1 of 20
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
`
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`* Case No.: 21-2773
`
` *
` *
` *
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`* JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`*
`
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`
`
`WILLIAM V. TRAN
`
`
`11831 Tulip Stern Drive
`
`
`Clarksburg, MD 20871
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`XAVIER BECERRA, Secretary
`
`U.S. Department of
`
`
`Health and Human Services
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Serve:
`
`
`
`
`Christina Patton Black, Esq.
`
`General Law Division
`
`
`Office of General Counsel
`
`
`Department of Health & Human Services
`330 C Street SW, Suite 2600
`
`Washington, D.C. 20201
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`COMES NOW, Plaintiff, William Tran (hereinafter “Plaintiff” or “Mr. Tran”), by and
`
`
`
`through his undersigned counsel Dionna Maria Lewis, Esq. complains against Defendant, United
`
`States Department of Health and Human Services (hereinafter “Defendant” or “HHS”) and in
`
`support thereof states as follows:
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42
`
`U.S.C. § 2000(e), et seq. (“Title VII”) and the Civil Rights Act of 1866, Section 1981(a) (“Section
`
`1981”), 42 U.S.C. § 1320d-6, et seq. for the Defendant’s unlawful harassment and discrimination
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-02773 Document 1 Filed 10/18/21 Page 2 of 20
`
`based on national origin (Vietnamese), non-selection based on race, and retaliation against the
`
`Plaintiff.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`2. This Honorable Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this suit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
`
`1331as it asserts a claim that arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,
`
`specifically Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e) et seq.,
`
`and Section 1981, to redress and enjoin employment practices of the Defendant.
`
`3. This Honorable Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343.
`
`4. Additionally, venue for this action is predicated upon 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c). Defendant
`
`is headquartered within the District of Columbia and is thus deemed to reside within this
`
`judicial district, and subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to this civil action.
`
`Accordingly, venue is proper in this Honorable Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c).
`
`EXHAUSTION OF REMEDIES
`
`5. Plaintiff has exhausted all of his administrative remedies.
`
`6. Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Baltimore Field Office of the U.S. Equal Employment
`
`Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on or about June 3, 2016, alleging national origin
`
`(Vietnamese) discrimination, non-selection based on race, and retaliation.
`
`7. On July 26, 2021 after Plaintiff’s request, the EEOC issued Plaintiff a Right-to-Sue Letter,
`
`which Plaintiff received on July 27, 2021.
`
`8. Accordingly, Plaintiff timely files this action in accordance with the Notice of Right to Appeal,
`
`which provided Plaintiff the right to file this Complaint within 90 days of receipt of the Notice.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-02773 Document 1 Filed 10/18/21 Page 3 of 20
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`9. Plaintiff brings this action to secure protection of rights granted under the statute mentioned
`
`above, to redress deprivation of rights thereunder, and to obtain such other relief as is necessary
`
`to redress the injury to Plaintiff resulting from Defendant's violation of those statutes.
`
`10. Plaintiff’s damages are significant, including, but not limited to, the loss of reputation, career
`
`advantage, a violation of privacy, emotional tranquility, and denial of his constitutional and
`
`statutory rights.
`
`11. The action seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as compensatory and punitive
`
`damages, both to secure future protection and to redress the past deprivation of rights
`
`guaranteed to named Plaintiff.
`
`PARTIES
`
`12. Plaintiff, William Tran is a Vietnamese-Asian male who resides in Clarksburg, Maryland,
`
`where he currently works for the National Institute of Health (“NIH”).
`
`13. Defendant is a governmental agency, which is headquartered in the District of Columbia.
`
`14. Plaintiff was employed as a Mechanical Engineer for the NIH for over ten (10) years and
`
`primarily worked at the NIH building in Bethesda, Maryland.
`
`15. During the relevant period, Defendant employed Plaintiff, William Tran.
`
`16. During the relevant period, Plaintiff was Defendant’s employee within the meaning, and
`
`entitled to the protections of Title VII and Section 1981.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`17. Plaintiff contends that the Defendant discriminated against him based on national origin
`
`(Vietnam) and engaged in non-selection for various employment positions because of his race.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-02773 Document 1 Filed 10/18/21 Page 4 of 20
`
`18. Plaintiff is a 51-years-old native of Vietnam but has been employed by the federal government
`
`for over ten (10) years. Prior to working for the National Institute of Health, Plaintiff worked
`
`for the Department of Defense for approximately one and a half years. Prior to his EEO
`
`grievances, Plaintiff consistently received “exceptional” annual performance ratings, both at
`
`the Department of Defense and National Institute of Health. However, after he began to engage
`
`in protected activity, that all changed.
`
`19. Plaintiff has a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering and has held a HVAC
`
`Contracting License since early 1993. Plaintiff has also owned and operated a HVAC
`
`consulting business.
`
`20. Despite Plaintiff’s qualifications, Plaintiff has repeatedly been denied career opportunities at
`
`NIH in favor of less-qualified individuals who were affiliated with or identified as, the national
`
`origin of senior management, who were typically the selecting officials. Even in the face of
`
`obvious disparate treatment, Plaintiff actively attempted to reach out to Defendant’s senior
`
`leadership to seek career advancement opportunities and trainings, to no avail.
`
`21. After Plaintiff’s attempts to advance in his career, Defendant’s management instructed Plaintiff
`
`to perform unskilled labor task-inventory. Plaintiff was the only employee who held the status
`
`of engineer in Defendant’s organization, yet he was directed to perform duties outside of his
`
`job description, which were typically reserved for less qualified individuals who would
`
`ordinarily perform unskilled tasks.
`
`22. Additionally, Plaintiff was tasked with supervising a difficult employee even though this was
`
`outside of his job duties and was seemingly aimed at making Plaintiff’s work life more
`
`difficult. Based on reason and belief, this was done in an effort to retaliate against him and
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-02773 Document 1 Filed 10/18/21 Page 5 of 20
`
`create a hostile working environment for him. As a result, Plaintiff began to document the
`
`numerous instances of discrimination he faced.
`
`23. On or about April 22, 2015, Mr. Guan sent Plaintiff an email stating that he would be
`
`responsible for supervising and training an employee, Mr. Victor Camello. However, Mr.
`
`Tran’s job responsibilities did not include supervisory duties and his job description or
`
`compensation was never updated to reflect this change or these expanded duties.
`
`24. Between April 22, 2015 and June 10, 2015, Plaintiff wrote numerous emails to Mr. Guan and
`
`Mr. Joe Nieves in regard to Mr. Camello’s hostile behavior towards him. Mr. Camello had
`
`displayed violent bursts of anger towards Plaintiff and other coworkers and Plaintiff was
`
`concerned for his and others’ safety in the workplace. Management did not take any action to
`
`address Plaintiff’s concerns despite the genuine fear that Plaintiff conveyed.
`
`25. On or about February 6, 2015, Plaintiff was constructively demoted when his job duties were
`
`changed from a practicing engineer to those of an unskilled laborer when he was assigned to
`
`an “Inventory Administrator” position, and given the task of organizing the inventory cage.
`
`Once again, there was no change in Plaintiff’s position classification as required by the Office
`
`of Personnel Management (OPM) nor was a new SF-50 issued to reflect the new job
`
`responsibilities.
`
`26. When questioned during the EEOC investigation as to who was responsible for deciding
`
`Plaintiff’s new job responsibilities, Mr. Nieves stated that Plaintiff’s reassignment was made
`
`by Ms. Alamelu Ramesh. However, Ms. Ramesh stated that while she was aware of the
`
`changes in Plaintiff’s responsibilities, she was not involved. Defendant’s EEOC interrogatory
`
`answers stated the new job responsibilities were “part of his existing position as a General
`
`Engineer,” however, Plaintiff was actually the only engineer required to perform these tasks.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-02773 Document 1 Filed 10/18/21 Page 6 of 20
`
`27. Plaintiff made clear to management that the inventory tasks did not utilize his professional
`
`skills and from February 12, 2015 to April 19, 2016, he inquired for other opportunities that
`
`were affiliated with his skills and experience. Being singled out, Plaintiff was the only
`
`engineer being required to work inventory tasks and management took no action to rectify the
`
`situation. Based on reason and belief, senior management continued to show preference for
`
`individuals who matched or closely matched their own national origin over Plaintiff, who did
`
`not.
`
`28. In or around December 2015, Plaintiff learned that a position he had previously expressed
`
`interest in had been cancelled but was later filled by a less qualified individual outside of his
`
`race and national origin. The Maintenance Supervisor position was never competitively
`
`announced and was filled by NIH outsider-Mr. Dax Sadler.
`
`29. On or about February 19, 2016, Mr. Alex Huang, Plaintiff’s coworker, stated during a morning
`
`meeting that he was referred to a Mechanical Engineer position in Durham, North Carolina.
`
`The position had been posted on or around early February 2016 and interviews had not yet
`
`been conducted with other potential candidates. Despite this, Mr. Huang made it clear that
`
`management was planning to bring him on board and to send him to Durham, North Carolina
`
`for a few weeks, before ultimately bringing him back to Bethesda, Maryland.
`
`30. Alex Huang and Mr. Kayvan was initially brought on board through an employment recruiting
`
`services (Ravens) to be under the same supervision as Plaintiff with Mr. Don Guan. Mr. Don
`
`Guan and Alex Huang are from the same native country.
`
`31. On or about February 25, 2016, Plaintiff went out to lunch with Mr. Huang and another
`
`coworker. At this lunch, Mr. Huang stated that management would hire Mr. Huang in a way
`
`that would look “legitimate.” Mr. Huang told Plaintiff that this meant his temporary stay in
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-02773 Document 1 Filed 10/18/21 Page 7 of 20
`
`Durham would be one month or up to three months and that “it’s all timing” on how the second
`
`position would be put out to support Mr. Huang’s temporary stay in Durham, or words similar.
`
`32. On or about March 8, 2016, Mr. Huang reiterated to Plaintiff and another coworker that
`
`interviews for the position were now taking place, but that management would ultimately hire
`
`Mr. Huang in the end. Then, on or about March 20, 2016, Mr. Huang informed his coworkers
`
`that he was scheduled for a phone interview for the position. In response, Plaintiff questioned
`
`Mr. Huang as to what would happen to one of their other coworkers, Mr. Kayvan. Mr. Huang
`
`responded that management would try to hire Mr. Kayvan through another avenue, but that it
`
`would be difficult because Mr. Kayvan did not have an engineering degree.
`
`33. On or about March, 27, 2016, Mr. Huang informed Plaintiff and a coworker that he had
`
`received an official hiring call from Human Resources to extend a job offer for the position in
`
`Durham, NC. On or about April 12, 2016, Mr. Huang informed Plaintiff and another coworker
`
`that his starting date for his new position would be May 2, 2016. Mr. Huang also informed
`
`Plaintiff that he and his wife had recently put in a bid for a new home in Bethesda after he
`
`received a tentative offer in Durham, and that they would be moving on or about May 13, 2016.
`
`34. On or about April 27, 2016, Mr. Huang indicated to Plaintiff that management agreed to detail
`
`him back to the NIH main campus in Bethesda after a few weeks stay in Durham. Mr. Huang
`
`informed Plaintiff that he would be renting an extended stay hotel room while in Durham for
`
`orientation, or words similar.
`
`35. As these events were occurring, Plaintiff found it odd that Mr. Huang had advance notice that
`
`he would receive the job offer in March 2016, and place a bid on a new home in Bethesda in
`
`April 2016. The job posting was clearly for Durham, North Carolina and Plaintiff found it
`
`suspicious that Mr. Huang would be “working” in Durham, NC, but living in Bethesda, MD.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-02773 Document 1 Filed 10/18/21 Page 8 of 20
`
`36. Throughout the course of these events, Plaintiff wrote five (5) emails between February 12,
`
`2016 and April 19, 2016 to management members, Ms. Ramesh, Mr. Guan, Mr. Nieves, Mr.
`
`Mayberry, and Mr. Vergara. Plaintiff pleaded for other career opportunities after he was
`
`assigned job responsibilities from Mechanical Engineer to unskilled labor tasks, such as
`
`inventory which was an affront to his background and experience.
`
`37. Plaintiff realized that management was orchestrating hiring opportunities for less-qualified
`
`individuals such as Mr. Huang and Mr. Kayvan, but never responded to any of Plaintiff’s
`
`emails for similar opportunities. It became clear that preference was being given to individuals
`
`who closely matched the national origins of senior management, which Plaintiff did not.
`
`38. Plaintiff was also denied the ability to telework by Mr. Don Guan when it was offered to other
`
`employees. During the EEOC investigation, management denied this, but Plaintiff’s coworker,
`
`Mr. Amir Abdelsalam attested to the fact that Plaintiff had inquired for the ability to telework
`
`but was denied the opportunity.
`
`39. Further, Plaintiff was denied training opportunities that were made available to other
`
`employees outside of his race and national origin. Central Utility Plant (CUP) management
`
`had scheduled numerous on and off-site trainings for engineers in an effort to enhance
`
`employee professional careers. Engineers would have a chance to travel offsite, attend
`
`conferences, and train in-house with new equipment. Despite Plaintiff’s ten-year career at
`
`NIH, Plaintiff was never invited to these trainings. Once again, Plaintiff noticed that
`
`individuals of similar nationalities as senior management received these opportunities instead.
`
`40. On or about April 19, 2016, Plaintiff was not considered to serve as Acting Chief. During the
`
`EEOC investigation, Defendant’s management was questioned about its reasoning for this.
`
`Both Ms. Ramesh and Mr. Farhad Memarzadeh stated that a GS-13 grade employee would not
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-02773 Document 1 Filed 10/18/21 Page 9 of 20
`
`be the Acting Branch Chief because a GS-13 could not manage a GS-14. This would have
`
`been sound reasoning had Plaintiff not been aware that Mr. Guan had been made Acting Utility
`
`Engineer Branch Chief when he was a GS-13 on or about October 24, 2014. Shortly
`
`afterwards, Mr. Guan officially became a Branch Chief, but management did not want to award
`
`Plaintiff the same opportunity as a result of his race and national origin.
`
`41. On or about, April 26, 2016, Plaintiff was also not considered to serve as the Maximo
`
`Administrator. Since October 2014, Plaintiff had been involved with Maximo Software when
`
`the Division of Technical Resource went through reorganization. Further, on or about
`
`February 6, 2015, Mr. Guan had sent an email to Mr. Leo Gumapas asking him to invite
`
`Plaintiff to all future Maximo meetings. Ultimately, Mr. Andy Vergara sent an official email
`
`to announce Mr. Eric Wisehart as the new Maximo Administrator.
`
`42. Based on information and belief, Mr. Wisehart has a criminal history who had initially been
`
`hired as a “High Voltage Shop Leader.” Mr. Wisehart finished a six-year prison term on
`
`September 2015 for crimes of dishonesty including “racketeering and theft charges,” but was
`
`still hired as a GS-13 employee without a college degree, because of his race and national
`
`origin, which was preferred in the department.
`
`43. Defendant’s management claimed that no one was aware of Mr. Wisehart’s felony conviction,
`
`but that Mr. Wisehart did not hide his record from the agency. Plaintiff found it suspicious
`
`that Human Resource Personnel did not know Mr. Wisehart had a felony conviction, unless
`
`Mr. Wisehart had lied on his application.
`
`44. During one of the morning coffee breaks, Plaintiff had with his coworkers, Plaintiff engaged
`
`in what became a heated argument with Mr. Huang regarding the competency of Senior
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-02773 Document 1 Filed 10/18/21 Page 10 of 20
`
`Management. Mr. Huang disagreed with Plaintiff’s comments that taxpayer money was being
`
`wasted.
`
`45. On or about May 3, 2016, Plaintiff was called into a meeting with Ms. Alamelu Ramesh,
`
`Deputy Director, and Mr. Dan Moses, Branch Chief. Plaintiff was informed that his inventory
`
`work duties were being removed and that there was no need for him at the CUP plant anymore.
`
`Plaintiff inquired as to why newly hired mechanical engineers with no experience were not
`
`being detailed to other areas and Ms. Ramesh responded that if Plaintiff was unhappy, he
`
`“should look for another job,” or words similar. Plaintiff believes that this action and these
`
`comments by Ms. Ramesh were in retaliation for his comments about Senior Management
`
`during his heated conversation with Mr. Huang.
`
`46. At a later instance, Mr. Huang suggested to Plaintiff’s coworker, Mr. Abdelsalam, that
`
`Plaintiff’s reassignment to inventory was due to Senior Management’s dissatisfaction with
`
`Plaintiff. Mr. Abdelsalam then relayed this to Plaintiff.
`
`47. Further, on or about April 11, 2016, chain emails between Ms. Ramesh, Mr. Nieves, Mr. Bill
`
`Topper and Plaintiff were sent to request an inventory “Labor Contract” extension. Ms.
`
`Medlin, Contracting Officer, confirmed the extension. However, three weeks later, Plaintiff
`
`was informed that the inventory task was coming to a close. The fact that the contract had
`
`been extended and three weeks later, after a heated argument about senior management,
`
`Plaintiff was informed he was being reassigned made Plaintiff realize that his reassignment
`
`was retaliatory in nature.
`
`48. On or about June 7, 2016, Plaintiff learned that he was denied a cash or time off bonus award
`
`while some of his colleagues with lower annual performance ratings received awards. This was
`
`the second time this had occurred to Plaintiff. The previous occurrence was in 2011 when one
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-02773 Document 1 Filed 10/18/21 Page 11 of 20
`
`of Plaintiff’s colleagues had received a Quality Step Increase and higher Cash Award with a
`
`rating of approximately around 4-4.5. Plaintiff received an “exceptional” rating of 5 that same
`
`year and did not receive a Quality Step Increase.
`
`49. On or about August 26, 2016, Plaintiff filed an incident case report with Officer Tart Dickerson
`
`at NIH Police Department. On or about August 30, 2016, NIH Detective David Warren
`
`reached out to Plaintiff by phone and told him that he would not get involved with his case
`
`because Plaintiff was in the middle of EEO complaints. Plaintiff pleaded with Detective
`
`Warren to conduct the investigation because the EEO complaints would take some time and
`
`Plaintiff was worried for his safety. Plaintiff never received a police incident report or a case
`
`number and never signed any document or had the opportunity to present his case to Detective
`
`Warren. However, Plaintiff later found out that an unsigned police incident report was
`
`provided to the EEO office and NIH HR during the EEOC investigation without his knowledge
`
`even though he had not been able to obtain the same, despite his requests.
`
`50. On or around November 2016, Plaintiff was not selected for a Supervisory Engineer position.
`
`Defendant’s management claimed that Plaintiff was not selected because he lacked a FAC-
`
`PPM certification and the candidate needed to have knowledge of the CUP. However,
`
`management controls who receives a FAC-PPM certification and Plaintiff had direct
`
`professional certifications with a degree in Mechanical Engineering, an HVAC license, project
`
`management, previously owned and operated a HVAC consultant business, and had worked
`
`directly with utility facilities. By contrast, Mr. Marty Haghjou, who was selected, was a civil
`
`engineer who worked with bridges and roads and not utility facilities. Based on reason and
`
`belief, the hiring manager who hired Mr. Marty Haghjou for the Supervisory Engineer position
`
`was also from the same native country.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-02773 Document 1 Filed 10/18/21 Page 12 of 20
`
`51. Plaintiff later learned that once again, the final individuals considered to this position were of
`
`similar race and national origin as the interview panel, while Plaintiff was not.
`
`52. The interview panel for the Branch Chief position included Mr. Guan (mechanical engineer),
`
`Mr. Steve Breslin (architect), and Mr. Gregory Gendron (journalist). At least two out of three
`
`of the interviewers did not have project management skills or direct field experience in a utility
`
`plant. Additionally, one out of the three individuals were a part of Plaintiff’s EEO ongoing
`
`EEO case and Plaintiff felt that they were deliberately giving him lower interview scores in
`
`retaliation for his EEO case.
`
`53. Finally, in or about 2018, Plaintiff learned that Mr. Haghjou had been moved to a different
`
`position and that his replacement, Mr. Abdul Bhuiyan, is an electrical engineer who had never
`
`been a project manager and has never held any project management certification. As such, the
`
`Supervisory Engineer position that Plaintiff was not selected for, allegedly because he did not
`
`have project management skills or knowledge of the CUP, is now occupied by an individual
`
`who does not have project management skills or knowledge of the CUP but is of a different
`
`race and national origin than Plaintiff.
`
`54. Based on reason and belief, Plaintiff was discriminated against when he was continuously
`
`passed over for promotions, demoted, and replaced by an ex-convict despite the fact he had
`
`consistent excellent annual performance ratings and was well qualified for the positions.
`
`55. As a result of this harassment and discrimination, Plaintiff has been gravely impacted with
`
`regards to his employment and emotional distress.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-02773 Document 1 Filed 10/18/21 Page 13 of 20
`
`COUNT I
`
`VIOLATION OF TITLE VII – NATIONAL ORIGIN DISCRIINATION
`
`56. Plaintiff incorporates all information and allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs as
`
`if fully set forth herein.
`
`57. A prima facie case of national origin discrimination requires a showing of four (4) elements: (1) he is
`
`a member of a protected class; (2) he was qualified for the position; (3) he suffered an adverse
`
`employment action; and (4) the action occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of
`
`discrimination.
`
`58. Here, the four (4) elements of a prima facie case of national origin discrimination are met. The Plaintiff
`
`is a Vietnamese Asian male, and is considered a member of a protected class as stipulated under Title
`
`VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Additionally, Plaintiff is a qualified engineer, as he has
`
`approximately ten years of relevant experience, without record of performance issues or misconduct.
`
`The Plaintiff suffered an adverse employment action directly related to his position of being a protected
`
`class member as recognized under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
`
`59. As a Vietnamese-Asian, Plaintiff is a member of a protected class.
`
`60. Because of his national origin (Vietnam), Plaintiff was subjected to the unlawful conduct and
`
`adverse actions alleged throughout this Complaint under Title VII.
`
`61. Defendant's foregoing unlawful adverse actions materially affected the terms, privileges, and
`
`conditions of Plaintiff’s contract with Defendant that was made when Defendant hired
`
`Plaintiff.
`
`62. Defendant knew that Plaintiff was a Vietnamese-Asian male prior to the adverse actions
`
`described throughout the Complaint and was aware or should have been aware of the
`
`discrimination Plaintiff was subjected to because of his national origin.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-02773 Document 1 Filed 10/18/21 Page 14 of 20
`
`63. Plaintiff has been treated differently and subjected to different terms and conditions of his
`
`employment contract with Defendant due to his national origin (Vietnam).
`
`64. Defendant has limited, segregated, and classified Plaintiff in a way that deprived him of
`
`privacy and enjoyment of employment opportunities, because of his national origin (Vietnam).
`
`65. Other employees who were similarly situated, but members of a different class than Plaintiff,
`
`have been treated more favorably than the Plaintiff in the terms and conditions of their
`
`employment.
`
`66. Plaintiff's national origin was a determining factor in Defendant's unlawful conduct toward
`
`Plaintiff.
`
`67. The reasons proffered by Defendant for its unlawful conduct are pretextual and Defendant
`
`cannot further offer any legitimate reason for its unlawful conduct.
`
`68. Defendant's aforementioned conduct has been intentional, deliberate, willful, malicious,
`
`reckless and in callous disregard of the rights of Plaintiff because of his national origin
`
`(Vietnam).
`
`COUNT II
`
`VIOLATION OF TITLE VII – RACE DISCRIINATION
`
`69. Plaintiff incorporates all information and allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs as
`
`if fully set forth herein.
`
`70. A prima facie case of race discrimination requires a showing of four (4) elements: (1) he is a member
`
`of a protected class; (2) he was qualified for the position; (3) he suffered an adverse employment action;
`
`and (4) the action occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination.
`
`71. Here, the four (4) elements of a prima facie case of race discrimination are met. The Plaintiff is a
`
`Vietnamese Asian male, and is considered a member of a protected class as stipulated under Title VII
`
`of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Additionally, Plaintiff is a qualified engineer, as he has approximately
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-02773 Document 1 Filed 10/18/21 Page 15 of 20
`
`ten years of relevant experience, without record of performance issues or misconduct. The Plaintiff
`
`suffered an adverse employment action directly related to his position of being a protected class
`
`member as recognized under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
`
`72. As a Vietnamese-Asian, Plaintiff is a member of a protected class.
`
`73. Because of his race (Asian/Vietnamese), Plaintiff was subjected to the unlawful conduct and
`
`adverse actions alleged throughout this Complaint under Title VII.
`
`74. Defendant's foregoing unlawful adverse actions materially affected the terms, privileges, and
`
`conditions of Plaintiff’s contract with Defendant that was made when Defendant hired
`
`Plaintiff.
`
`75. Defendant knew that Plaintiff was a Vietnamese-Asian male prior to the adverse actions
`
`described throughout the Complaint and was aware or should have been aware of the
`
`discrimination Plaintiff was subjected to because of his national origin.
`
`76. Plaintiff has been treated differently and subjected to different terms and conditions of his
`
`employment contract with Defendant due to his national origin (Vietnam).
`
`77. Defendant has limited, segregated, and classified Plaintiff in a way that deprived him of
`
`privacy and enjoyment of employment opportunities, because of his national origin (Vietnam).
`
`78. Other employees who were similarly situated, but members of a different class than Plaintiff,
`
`have been treated more favorably than the Plaintiff in the terms and conditions of their
`
`employment.
`
`79. Plaintiff's national origin was a determining factor in Defendant's unlawful conduct toward
`
`Plaintiff.
`
`80. The reasons proffered by Defendant for its unlawful conduct are pretextual and Defendant
`
`cannot further offer any legitimate reason for its unlawful conduct.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-02773 Document 1 Filed 10/18/21 Page 16 of 20
`
`81. Defendant's aforementioned conduct has been intentional, deliberate, willful, malicious,
`
`reckless and in callous disregard of the rights of Plaintiff because of his national origin
`
`(Vietnam).
`
`COUNT III
`
`VIOLATION OF TITLE VII – RETALIATION
`82. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation in the paragraphs
`
`above, as if fully set forth herein.
`
`83. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits an employer from “discriminat[ing] against any
`
`individual with respect to [his] compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment,
`
`because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin,” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–
`
`2(a)(1), and from retaliating against employees for engaging in activity protected by Title VII,
`
`id. § 2000e–3(a). To that end, an employer may not create or condone a hostile or abusive work
`
`environment that is discriminatory. Meritor Sav. Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 64–65
`
`(1986).
`
`84. Here, the Plaintiff faced retaliation for his prior EEO activity.
`
`85. Soon after contacting an EEO counselor, Plaintiff was subjected to the unlawful conduct and
`
`adverse actions alleged throughout this Complaint in violation of Title VII.
`
`86. Defendant subjected Plaintiff to the aforementioned adverse employment actions because of
`
`his opposition to the unlawful and discriminatory employment practices of Defendant and its
`
`agents in violation of Title VII.
`
`87. Defendant, including Plaintiff's supervisors, knew of Plaintiff’s engagement in protected
`
`activity prior to engaging in the aforementioned adverse actions when they were informed by
`
`Plaintiff directly, advised by an EEOC representative, or otherwise should have known that
`
`Plaintiff engaged in the complaint process based on his informal and formal complaint filings.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-02773 Document 1 Filed 10/18/21 Page 17 of 20
`
`88. The adverse retaliatory actions to which Plaintiff has been subjected to are a direct result of
`
`Plaintiff having previously engaged in statutorily-protected activity.
`
`89. Plaintiff’s prior protected activity was a determining factor in Defendant's unlawful conduct
`
`toward Plaintiff.
`
`90. Plaintiff's prior protected activity was a motivating factor in Defendant's unlawful conduct
`
`toward Plaintiff.
`
`91. Similarly situated employees (no known prior EEOC activity) were not subjected to the same,
`
`similar, or any adverse treatment.
`
`92. Defendant's unlawful conduct has created a climate of fear and isolation for Plaintiff and other
`
`employees, which creates a chilling effect in violation of Title VII.
`
`93. The reasons proffered by Defendant for its unlawful conduct are pretextual and Defendant
`
`cannot further offer any legitimate reason for its unlawful conduct.
`
`94. Defendant's unlawful conduct negatively impacted the terms, conditions, and privileges of
`
`Plaintiff's employment.
`
`95. Defendant's retaliatory conduct has been intentional, deliberate, willful, malicious, reckless
`
`and in callous disregard of the rights of Plaintiff because of his participation and opposition to
`
`Defendant's discriminatory conduct.
`
`96. Defendant is directly liable for the discriminatory acts or omissions of its agents, servants and
`
`employees while acting within the course and scope of their employment, under the theory of
`
`Respondeat Superior.
`
`97. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant's conduct alle

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket